Key Takeaway
Personal injury attorney discusses court ruling on IME no-show affidavits and evidence requirements for New York no-fault insurance cases.
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 published articles analyzing ime issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
S.A. Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50953(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015)
It is one of the perks of maintaining this monster. I chose the cases that land on here, although I allow almost all comments on here, even if directed towards me.
“The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiffs’ assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 ; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 ). Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance, including the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and chiropractor/acupuncturist, attesting to the affiants’ personal knowledge of their office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear for a scheduled IME (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424; Harmonic Physical Therapy v Encompass Home & Auto Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 146, 2015 NY Slip Op 50733 ).”
The no-show affidavits did not specifically states that the healthcare professional (“hcp”) was present on the date of the examination. It relayed the fact that the on day x, the healthcare professional was supposed to conduct the IME and assignor failed to appear. It set forth the practice and procedure for recording no-shows and letting the vendor know. This has been sufficient for years; however, in light of Alrof/Safeco mania, all of us have made sure the hcp states “I was present on the date and time and Assignor failed to attend”. Civil Court denied the motion based upon Alfro/Safeco.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
As we all know by now, Alrof and Bright Supply were problematic because counsel for the insurance carrier used indefinite prepositions in discussing the no-show, i.e., if the examinations went forward, I would have been there. I hope that counsel has changed their no-show affirmations.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements for IME No Shows
- Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More IME issues Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
IME no-show affidavit executed 8 years prior to the no show
Court rejected IME no-show affidavits executed 8 years after the missed appointments, emphasizing the need for contemporaneous documentation in no-fault cases.
Sep 29, 2016
IME No-Show Defense: What Counts as Timely Mailing of IME Notices in New York?
Acupuncture Solutions upheld IME notice and no-show proof. Compare its unexplained bill chronology with Gaines's later pre-claim timing distinction.
Mar 26, 2015
Alrof v. Safeco – its first application
Court applies Alrof v. Safeco ruling requiring personal knowledge for IME no-show claims, potentially limiting insurers' defense options in no-fault cases.
Jun 11, 2013
IME Diagnostic Testing Rights: What NY Claimants Need to Know
Learn your rights regarding diagnostic testing during Independent Medical Examinations in New York. Expert guidance for Long Island and Nassau County claimants.
Nov 28, 2009Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a ime issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
